Gary Marcus

Rank 23 of 47
|
Score 47
6/28/2025, 9:27:46 PM
X
In reply to:
Lawrence Chan
@justanotherlaw
·
53d
@GaryMarcus @ohabryka This seems like such a silly hill to die on, given your claim (“no GPT-5”) is literally true as written, o1 (rolled out to ChatGPT users in Dec 2024) was also a huge improvement on -4, and most threat models for catastrophic risk don’t require broad public access in the first
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
53d
@ohabryka @justanotherlaw it wasn’t available to any independent scientists
Oliver Habryka
@ohabryka
·
53d
@justanotherlaw @GaryMarcus But o3 had finished training in 2024! The evals were released in 2024. It was available to some people in a research preview. If you have this much wiggle room with your dates you can avoid falsification in any given year for frontier progress.
Lawrence Chan
@justanotherlaw
·
53d
@GaryMarcus @ohabryka I mean, yeah, that's my point later in my thread: you seem to have intended the claim very literally/narrowly, but it’s easy for people to see it as claiming that we won’t see any large advances in 2024. (Also, I’m pretty sure that if you hid the CoT and showed o1 to people in
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
53d
@justanotherlaw @ohabryka and because even when i say unambigously no GPT-5 and GPT-5 doesn’t show up people find something to gripe about.
Lawrence Chan
@justanotherlaw
·
53d
@GaryMarcus @ohabryka (In large part because he doesn’t make specific, unambiguously resolvable forecasts, as this attempt to resolve his forecasts is clearly demonstrating.)

The statement is part of a public discourse on the topic of AI development and the communication of predictions related to catastrophic risk models. The tone is defensive, as the speaker is responding to a perceived misinterpretation of their previous statements.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not appear to cause harm directly, but the defensive tone could escalate tensions in the discussion.
  2. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement engages in dialogue but does not constructively address the disagreement, focusing instead on defending the speaker's position without fostering understanding. [-1]